[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria





----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 06:05:47 -0700
> From: davidpeters@att.net
> To: habib@jhmi.edu
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria
>
>
> Yes, there is some intuition that goes into judging results.
> ie. placing mesosaurs with pareiasaurs = bad.
>
> More importantly, there is some experience at work here too. Yes, I've done 
> the larger, more inclusive study, that indicates the breaks are real and 
> taxon exclusion is the culprit.

 go on, please.

> As for your 'by definition' comment, yes. True. Even so, 'by default' is also 
> at work here. The authors were working from too large a gamut and too small 
> of an inclusion group to make sense. There are better sister taxa out there. 
> The larger study would have revealed this.

 if you could, when you've reached a good stopping point with these taxa to 
take a break, could you take a look at the Desmostylia?

>> habib@jhmi.edu

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009